Teaching Science With Technology

8/14/2019 Teaching Science With Technology

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/teaching-science-with-technology 1/18

E Journal - Science http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/science/article1.cfm

18 15/03/2009 10:47

Contents

Editorial

Current IssuesEnglish

Mathematics

Science

Social Studies

General

Current Practice

Seminal Articles

CITE Journal

Awards

Society for

Information

Technology in

Education

Sponsor ed by the Associationfor the Education of Teachers in Science

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2009 ) ISSN 1528-5804

Submit a Formal Commentary

Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved fromhttp://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/science/article1.cfm

Teaching Science with Technology: Case Studies ofScience Teachers’ Development of Technology,

Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge

S. Selcen Guzey University of Minnesota

Gillian H. RoehrigUniversity of Minnesota

Abstract

This study examines the development of technology, pedagogy, andcontent knowledge (TPACK) in four in-service secondary scienceteachers as they participated in a professional developmentprogram focusing on technology integration into K-12 classrooms to

support science as inquiry teaching. In the program, probeware,mind-mapping tools (CMaps), and Internet applications―computer simulations, digital images, and movies — wereintroduced to the science teachers. A descriptive multicase study design was employed to track teachers’ development over the yearlong program. Data included interviews, surveys, classroomobservations, teachers’ technology integration plans, and actionresearch study reports. The program was found to have positiveimpacts to varying degrees on teachers’ development of TPACK.Contextual factors and teachers’ pedagogical reasoning affectedteachers’ ability to enact in their classrooms what they learned inthe program. Suggestions for designing effective professionaldevelopment programs to improve science teachers’ TPACK arediscussed.

Science teaching is such a complex, dynamic profession that it is difficult for ateacher to stay up-to-date. For a teacher to grow professionally and become better as a teacher of science, a special, continuous effort is required(Showalter, 1984, p. 21).

To better prepare students for the science and technology of the 21st century, the currentscience education reforms ask science teachers to integrate technology and inquiry-basedteaching into their instruction (American Association for the Advancement of Science,1993; National Research Council [NRC], 1996, 2000). The National Science EducationStandards (NSES) define inquiry as “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work” (NRC,




18 15/03/2009 10:47

1996, p. 23). The NSES encourage teachers to apply “a variety of technologies, such ashand tools, measuring instruments, and calculators [as] an integral component of scientific investigations” to support student inquiry (p.175). Utilizing technology tools ininquiry-based science classrooms allows students to work as scientists (Novak & Krajcik,2006, p. 76).

Teaching science as emphasized in the reform documents, however, is not easy. Scienceteachers experience various constraints, such as lack of time, equipment, pedagogical

content knowledge, and pedagogical skills in implementing reform-based teachingstrategies (Crawford, 1999, 2000; Roehrig & Luft, 2004, 2006). One way to overcome the barriers and to reform teaching is to participate in professional development programsthat provide opportunities for social, personal, and professional development (Bell &Gilbert, 2004). Professional development programs in which teachers collaborate withother teachers, reflect on their classroom practices, and receive support and feedback have been shown to foster teachers’ professional development (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001; Huffman, 2006; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson,2003).

In this light, the professional development program, Technology Enhanced Communities(TEC), which is presented in this paper, was designed to create a learning community where science teachers can learn to integrate technology into their teaching to support

student inquiry. TEC has drawn heavily on situated learning theory, which defines learningas situated, social, and distributed (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991;Putnam & Borko, 2000). Since a situated learning environment supports collaborationamong participants (Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Putnam & Borko, 2000),and the collaboration among teachers enhances teacher learning (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,1999; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 1994; Little, 1990), TEC was designed toprovide teachers with opportunities to build a community that enables learning and isdistributed among teachers. The situated learning theory was used as a design framework for TEC, but technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) was employed as atheoretical framework for the present study.

Since the concept of TPACK has emerged recently, there has been no consensus on thenature and development of TPACK among researchers and teacher educators. As

suggested by many authors in the Handbook of Technological Pedagogical ContentKnowledge (AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology, 2008), more researchneeds to examine the role of teacher preparation programs teachers’ beliefs (Niess, 2008),and specific student and school contexts (McCrory, 2008) regarding the nature anddevelopment of TPACK. Thus, this study was conducted to investigate the effects of anin-service teacher education program (TEC) on science teachers’ development of TPACK.The research question guiding this study was: How does the professional developmentprogram, TEC, enhance science teachers’ TPACK?

Review of the Relevant Literature

Technology Integration Into Science Classrooms

Educational technology tools such as computers, probeware, data collection and analysissoftware, digital microscopes, hypermedia/multimedia, student response systems, andinteractive white boards can help students actively engage in the acquisition of scientificknowledge and development of the nature of science and inquiry. When educationaltechnology tools are used appropriately and effectively in science classrooms, studentsactively engage in their knowledge construction and improve their thinking and problemsolving skills (Trowbridge, Bybee, & Powell, 2008).

Many new educational technology tools are now available for science teachers. However,integrating technology into instruction is still challenging for most teachers (Norris,Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2003; Office of Technology Assessment [OTA], 1995). Theexisting studies demonstrate that technology integration is a long-term process requiringcommitment (Doering, Hughes, & Huffman, 2003; Hughes, Kerr, & Ooms, 2005;

Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). Teachers need ongoing support while they makeefforts to develop and sustain effective technology integration. Professional learningcommunities, where teachers collaborate with other teachers to improve and support theirlearning and teaching, are effective for incorporating technology into teaching (Krajcik et




18 15/03/2009 10:47

al., 1994; Little, 1990). As a part of a community, teachers share their knowledge,practices, and experiences; discuss issues related to student learning; and critique andsupport each others’ knowledge and pedagogical growth while they are learning about new technologies (Hughes et al., 2005).

Technology integration is most commonly associated with professional developmentopportunities. The need for participant-driven professional development programs in which teachers engage in inquiry and reflect on their practices to improve their learning

about technology has been emphasized by many researchers (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003;Zeichner, 2003). Zeichner, for example, argued that teacher action research is animportant aspect of effective professional development. According to Zeichner, to improvetheir learning and practices, teachers should become teacher researchers, conductself-study research, and engage in teacher research groups. These collaborative groupsprovide teachers with support and opportunities to deeply analyze their learning andpractices.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Shulman (1987) defined seven knowledge bases for teachers: content knowledge, generalpedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK),knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational context, and

knowledge of educational ends, goals, and values. According to Shulman, among theseknowledge bases, PCK plays the most important role in effective teaching. He argued thatteachers should develop PCK, which is “the particular form of content knowledge thatembodies the aspects of content most germane to its teachability” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9).PCK is not only a special form of content knowledge but also a “blending of content andpedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues areorganized, presented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, andpresented for instruction” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8).

Shulman argued that teachers not only need to know their content but also need to know how to present it effectively. Good teaching “begins with an act of reason, continues with aprocess of reasoning, culminates in performances of imparting, eliciting, involving, orenticing, and is then thought about some more until the process begins again” (Shulman,

1987, p. 13). Thus, to make effective pedagogical decisions about what to teach and how toteach it, teachers should develop both their PCK and pedagogical reasoning skills.

Since Shulman’s initial conceptualization of PCK, researchers have developed new formsand components of PCK (e.g., Cochran, DeRuiter, & King, 1993; Grossman, 1990; Marks,1990; Magnusson, Borko, & Krajcik, 1994; Tamir, 1988). Some researchers while followingShulman’s original classification have added new components (Grossman, 1990; Marks1990; Fernandez-Balboa & Stiehl, 1995), while others have developed differentconceptions of PCK and argued about the blurry borders between PCK and contentknowledge (Cochran et al., 1993). Building on Shulman’s groundbreaking work, theseresearchers have generated a myriad of versions of PCK. In a recent review of the PCK literature, Lee, Brown, Luft, and Roehrig (2007) identified a consensus among researcherson the following two components of PCK: (a) teachers’ knowledge of student learning to

translate and transform content to facilitate students’ understanding and (b) teachers’knowledge of particular teaching strategies and representations (e.g., examples,explanations, analogies, and illustrations).

The first component, knowledge of student learning and conceptions, includes thefollowing elements: students’ prior knowledge, variations in students’ approaches tolearning, and students’ misconceptions. This component of PCK refers to teachers’knowledge and understanding about students’ learning and their ideas about a particulararea or topic. This type of knowledge also refers to teachers’ understanding of variations instudents’ different approaches to learning. The second component refers to teachers’knowledge of specific instructional strategies and representations that can be helpful forstudents to understand new concepts.

TPACK

In recent years, many researchers in the field of educational technology have been focusedon the role of teacher knowledge on technology integration (Hughes, 2005; Koehler &




18 15/03/2009 10:47

Mishra, 2005, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Niess, 2005). The term TPACK (also knownas TPCK; Koehler & Mishra, 2005) has emerged as a knowledge base needed by teachers toincorporate technology into their teaching. Koehler and Mishra (2005) discussed TPACK as a framework for teacher knowledge for technology integration. Their TPACK framework is based upon Shulman’s conception of PCK. In Koehler and Mishra’s model of TPACK,there are three main components of teacher knowledge: content, technology, andpedagogy. They described TPACK as a combination of these three knowledge bases. According to the authors, TPACK is the

....basis of effective teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques thatuse technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of whatmakes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redresssome of problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledgeand theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be usedto build on existing knowledge and to develop new epistemologies orstrengthen old ones. (Koehler & Mishra, 2008, p. 17-18)

Koehler and Mishra (2008) argued that for effective technology integration all threeknowledge elements (content, pedagogy, and technology) should exist in a dynamicequilibrium. Niess (2005) described TPACK as the “integration of the development of

knowledge of subject matter with the development of technology and of knowledge of teaching and learning.” However, Niess (2008) argued that TPACK is a way of thinkingrather than a knowledge base. According to Niess (2008) TPACK is

....a way of thinking strategically while involved in planning, organizing,critiquing, and abstracting, for specific content, specific student needs, andspecific classroom situations while concurrently considering the multitude of twenty-first century technologies with the potential for supporting studentlearning. (p. 224)

McCrory (2008) investigated science teachers, TPACK, pointing out that four knowledge bases are vital to science teachers’ development of TPACK: content, students, technology,and pedagogy. According to McCrory, science teachers need to possess adequate

knowledge of science to help students develop understandings of various science concepts.In order to address students’ particular needs, teachers should have deep knowledge andunderstanding about student learning. Teachers’ knowledge about students facilitates thedevelopment of strategies to address students’ prior knowledge of particular scienceconcepts and misconceptions in science (McCrory, 2008). Having adequate pedagogicalknowledge allows teachers to teach effectively a particular science concept to a particulargroup of students. A teacher with strong pedagogical knowledge employs effective teachingstrategies, creates well-designed lessons plans, applies successful classroom managementtechniques, and develops an understanding about student learning (Koehler & Mishra,2008).

Furthermore, well-developed knowledge of technology allows teachers to incorporatetechnologies into their classroom instruction. Importantly, technology knowledge is much

more than just knowing about technology; a deep understanding of technology is neededto use technology for effective classroom instruction, communication, problem solving,and decision making (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). As emphasized by McCrory (2008), thesefour knowledge bases―knowledge of, science, students, pedagogy, and technology ― work collaboratively “in knowing where [in the curriculum] to use technology, what technology to use, and how to teach with it” (McCrory, 2008, p. 195). In this study, we followedMcCrory’s (2008) conceptualization of TPACK for science teachers to investigate theaffects of TEC on science teachers’ development of TPACK.

The Study

Context

TEC was designed to help secondary science teachers develop necessary knowledge andskills for integrating technology for science-as-inquiry teaching. TEC was a yearlong,intensive program, which included a 2-week-long summer introductory course aboutinquiry teaching and technology tools and follow-up group meetings throughout the school




18 15/03/2009 10:47

year associated with an online course about teacher action research. A LeMill community Web site was created at the beginning of the program. LeMill is a “Web community forfinding, authoring, and sharing learning resources” (http://lemill.net). Participantteachers created accounts and joined the TEC community Web site. Through this Web site,teachers interacted with the university researchers and their colleagues and were able toshare and discuss lesson resources.

Several instructional technologies were presented in the summer course: concept mapping

tools (CMap tools; Novak & Gowin, 1984), VeeMaps (Roehrig, Luft, & Edwards, 2001),probeware (e.g., pH, temperature, concentration of solutions, blood pressure, andrespiration rate), computer simulations, digital images, and movies. Teachers engaged ininquiry-based activities while they were learning these technology tools. For example,teachers implemented a cookbook lab experiment about the greenhouse effect followingthe procedure given by the university educators. Teachers then modified this activity to beinquiry based. Through implementation, discussions, and reflections, teachers developedtheir understanding of inquiry and effectiveness of technology tools in student learningand inquiry. Throughout the entire program teachers were encouraged to reflect on theirclassroom practices. Teachers each wrote about their experiences with technology toolsand inquiry in their blogs on the LeMill community Web site.

After learning about technology tools, teachers created lesson plans that included

technology tools and loaded these lesson plans onto the LeMill Web site. Furthermore,each teacher developed a technology integration plan to follow in the subsequent school year. During the school year, the teachers and the university educators met several times todiscuss the constraints teachers had experienced in the integration of technology topractice reform-based science instruction. In addition, during the school year teachersused the LeMill site to ask questions, share lesson plans and curricula, and reflect on theirteaching. In the online discussions and face-to-face meetings, the members of the learningcommunity, the teachers and the university educators, engaged in numerous conversationsabout how to overcome these barriers (e.g., lack of access to technology).

In spring 2008, the teachers were formally engaged in teacher action research. They designed and conducted action research studies to reflect upon their practices and learningabout technology. During this phase, university educators and teachers worked

collaboratively. Teachers each prepared a Google document with their action researchreport and shared it with university educators and other teachers. The researchersprovided necessary theoretical knowledge for teachers to design their studies. Conductingaction research allowed teachers to see the effectiveness of using technology tools instudent learning. During this phase, the collaboration among teachers and the university educators fostered the growth of the learning community.

Participants

The teachers in this study were the participants in the TEC professional developmentprogram that focused on technology integration in science classrooms. Eleven secondary science teachers enrolled in the program. These teachers had varying levels of teachingexperience, ranging from 1 to 17 years. Five of them were experienced and 6 of them were

beginning secondary science teachers. Only beginning teachers were invited to participatein the present study since they had more commonalities with each other than withexperienced teachers. For example, the beginning teachers all graduated from the sameteacher education program and were all teaching their academic specialty. The teachershad recently completed preservice coursework focused on inquiry-based teaching andimplementing science instruction with technology tools. Of the six beginning teacherparticipants in TEC, four – Jason, Brenna, Matt, and Cassie – participated in this study.The other two beginning teachers did not participate in the study, as they did not haveenough time to devote to the research study. More information about teachers can befound in Table 1. Pseudonyms are used for all teacher participants.

Table 1Demographic Information About the Participating Teachers

Teacher Subject School Years of Previous




18 15/03/2009 10:47

TeachingExperience[a]

Knowledgeand Skills

AboutTechnology

Jason 9th and 10th gradeBiology

Public schoolin a suburbanarea

1 Developing

Brenna 8th grade

Earth Science

Public school

in a suburbanarea

2 Developing

Matt 8th gradePhysical Scienceand Life Science

Private schoolin an urbanarea

3 Sophisticated

Cassie 9th,10th,11th, and12th grade Life

Scienceand Physical Science

Charter schoolin an urbanarea

2 Limited

[a] Years of experience includes the current year of teaching.

Data Collection

Various data collection instruments were used to investigate how TEC impacted teachers’development of TPACK. These data collection instruments included surveys, interviews,teachers’ technology integration plans created at the end of the summer course, field notesfrom the classroom observations of the teachers, and teachers’ action research reports. Inthis study, triangulation was achieved through the various techniques of data collection (asin Patton, 1987).

Electronic surveys were sent to teachers four times during the program. The first survey requested information about teachers’ knowledge and skills about using technology toolsin their classrooms. The second survey was sent at the end of the summer course

requesting information about the effectiveness of the summer course on teachers’ learningabout technology tools. To find what, when, and how teachers used technology tools andinquiry-based teaching during the fall semester, we sent a survey at the end of thesemester. Finally, after completing the online course, teachers received another survey thatincluded questions about their overall experience in the program, what they learned, andhow they applied their knowledge in their instruction.

Interviews were conducted at the beginning and end of the summer program. Questionsincluded were (a) How do your students learn science best? (b) How do you decide what toteach and what not to teach? (c) What does it mean to you to teach science with technology tools? (d) How often do you implement inquiry in your classroom? (e) Can you give anexample of your inquiry instruction? and (f) What did you consider while planning thisinquiry lesson?

Teachers were required to write a technology integration plan at the end of the summercourse. In their plans, teachers explained in what ways, when, and how they could usetechnology tools in their classrooms during the upcoming school year. In addition, in theirplans teachers talked about the constraints they might face while integrating technology into their teaching and how they could overcome these obstacles.

Teachers were observed in their classrooms at least two times during the 2007-2008school year. Observations were deliberately scheduled during a time when the teacher wasusing technology. Detailed field notes about teachers’ practices, technology tools beingused, and student engagement were taken during the observations. Teacher artifacts suchas lesson plans and student handouts were also collected.

During spring 2008, each teacher designed and conducted action research studies.Teachers reflected on their practices by identifying their own questions, documenting theirown practices, analyzing their findings, and sharing their findings with university educators and other teachers. A range of topics were addressed by the teachers. Many teachers, for example, focused on impact of a particular technology tool (e.g., concept




18 15/03/2009 10:47

mapping, simulations, and online discussions) on student learning.

Data Analysis

Each participant teacher’s set of documents (interview transcript, observation notes,surveys, technology integration plan, classroom artifacts, and action research reports) were analyzed separately. The process of constant comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin,1990) was used to analyze the data. First, each incident in a teacher’s document was codedfor a category. As the incidents were coded, we compared them with the previous incidentsthat coded in the same category to find common patterns, as well as differences in the data(as in Glaser, 1965).

As discussed in Merriam (1998), categories emerging from the data were exhaustive,mutually exclusive, sensitizing, and conceptually congruent and reflected the purpose of the study. For example, the following categories were created for participant Cassie:misunderstanding of inquiry, lack of technological resources, unwillingness to change,mixed beliefs about technology, feeling of isolation, undeveloped conception of science,and weak teacher-student relationships.

After coding the categories, we compared categories for each participating teacher andrecorded “memos” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). At this time, we wrote case studies for each

teacher based on the most salient categories that provided memos. The emergent salientcategories were previous experiences with technology; beliefs about teaching, learning,and technology; the use of technology in classroom instruction; and the implementation of inquiry-based teaching. Case studies were written as recommended in Yin (1994). We thenintegrated diverse memos with other memos of analysis to discern the impact of TEC onteachers’ development of TPACK. In the last phase of the analysis, we defined majorthemes derived from the data.

Results

At the end of the program, the participant teachers of this study, Jason, Brenna, Matt, andCassie met all the requirements for completing the program. However, teachers were eachfound to integrate technology into their teaching to various degrees. The cases of these

teachers describe the differences in their development of TPACK.

Jason’s Profile

Jason was a first-year teacher at a suburban high school. He taught 9th- and 10th-grade biology. Before participating in the program, Jason had some experience with technology tools. He felt comfortable using concept mapping tools (CMap and Inspiration),temperature and pH probeware, and digital microscopes. Jason believed that the purposeof using technology tools in science classrooms is to “motivate students to answer theirown questions and get more into the process of inquiry.”

At the end of the summer course, Jason designed a technology integration plan, in whichhe specifically explained which technology tools he was planning to use during the school

year. Jason was excited to use VeeMaps and CMap tools in his classroom. He said thatthese tools were a “very high priority to implement in [his] classroom. They are much better at helping students clarify their previous knowledge, experimental procedure andimplications of their work.” Ultimately, however, Jason did not employ VeeMaps in hisclassroom due to a “lack of familiarity” with them. As a beginning teacher Jason could notmake effective decisions about how and when to use VeeMaps.

TEC had been his first experience with the concept of VeeMaps, and he did not feelcomfortable using them in his classroom. On the other hand, Jason used CMaps once amonth in his instruction. Furthermore, he also conducted an action research study on theeffectiveness of concept mapping on his students’ retention and understanding of contentknowledge. Results of this study encouraged Jason to use this tool more frequently in thenext teaching year. In addition to these tools, Jason created a Web site on his school

server. He posted all his notes online for students to access. His students submitted theirhomework electronically. Jason said that this helped him “to get more organized.”

Since Jason had limited access to the probeware in his school, he did not incorporate itinto his teaching. Jason believed that the limited number of probes would cause




18 15/03/2009 10:47

“disengagement and or improper use…in small groups.” Jason was also reluctant to usesimulations. He expressed that “many of the simulations [he] has found online areinformative but have a great potential for students to become disengaged or ‘click happy.’”Even though he used two simulations when he taught about DNA during the fall semester,he did not believe that these tools were effective in enhancing student learning.

Jason was an advocate of inquiry-based teaching. He said that “since the beginning of theteacher education program, inquiry-based instruction has been a significant priority in

[his] classroom lessons. Whether small guided activities or full inquiry labs, inquiry-basedinstruction is important to implement in place of typical cookbook labs.” Prior to theprogram, his biggest barrier to implementing inquiry lessons was modifying step-by-steplabs into inquiry activities. During the program, Jason learned how to turn the cookbook labs into inquiry activities.

Jason had a rigid conception of inquiry. For him, all inquiry lessons, technology integratedor not, should allow students to

ask their own questions about a topic and taking the necessary steps toresearch and set up an experiment to test their ideas. Student experimentsshould reduce their investigation into a single variable. Students’ methods andexperimental setup should go through several reviews not only by a teacher but

also be clear in their instructions and testing the correct variable.

Jason’s understanding of inquiry was mirrored in his classroom practices. In the observedinquiry lesson on bacteria, students investigated antibacterial products on strains of bacterial colonies. Students posed their own research questions; they set up experimentsand then tested variables such as detergent, soap, and toothpaste on bacterial growth.Interviews with Jason revealed that he defined inquiry activities exclusively as full or“open-ended,” in which students pose their own questions and design their ownexperiment to test variables. The “bacteria inquiry” lesson was the only observed inquiry activity (as defined by Jason) that he implemented during the school year. This inquiry activity did not involve any technology tools.

Brenna’s Profile

Brenna was a second-year teacher at a suburban middle school. She taught eighth-gradeEarth science. Prior to participating in the program, Brenna did not have much previousexperience with many of the basic technology tools. She was not comfortable with usingcomputers for sharing and collaboration. However, she knew about probeware, GoogleEarth, and CMap tools. Brenna’s biggest concern was implementing basic troubleshootingtechniques for technology tools. She had not used many of the tools previously since shedid not know how to solve technology-related problems.

Before participating in the program, Brenna used only Powerpoint presentations and someGoogle Earth demos in her teaching. After learning various tools in the program, Brennadecided to create a 3-year technology integration plan. The main goal of her teaching in thefirst year of this plan was to be able to “check out computers as often as [she] would like

and use concept maps, VeeMaps, and clickers (classroom response systems).” Her secondand third year commitments included creating more laboratory activities that utilizeprobeware and designing a personal Web page and maintain updates on this Web page.

During the school year, Brenna frequently used CMap tools, VeeMaps, and clickers. Forexample, in an observed lesson, Brenna asked her students to design their density lab in which they compare the density of different materials of their choice. Brenna providedmany materials, such as vinegar, vegetable oil, and irregular shapes of solids like penniesand rocks. The question students focused on was “How can we compare the density of different things?” Brenna asked students to create VeeMaps instead of writing traditionallab reports. In their VeeMaps students wrote hypotheses, a list of new words, procedures,results, and conclusions of their experiments.

Brenna was also observed while she used clickers in her teaching. Clickers, also known asstudent response systems or classroom response systems, help teachers create interactiveclassroom environments. In her classroom, Brenna used clickers to get information aboutstudent learning. At the end of each unit, Brenna asked multiple choice questions to herstudents; students each submitted their answers using the clicker, and Brenna’s computer




18 15/03/2009 10:47

gathered students’ answers. This approach allowed Brenna to see student feedback in realtime and address the areas where students had difficulty understanding.

Brenna designed an action research study to investigate the effectiveness of clickers on herstudents’ understanding of new concepts. Brenna believed that “clickers are very effectivein assessing the students’ prior knowledge and current understanding.” However, Brennamostly used clickers as a “summative assessment at the end of units.” She assigned eachstudent to a particular clicker and tracked students’ understanding of various topics. For

Brenna, clickers are effective tools since they “provide immediate feedback for bothstudents and [her].”

Even though Brenna integrated many of the technology tools that she learned in theprogram, she felt that she still needed more training with technology. She was notcomfortable with using many of the tools. For example, during one of the observed classes,Brenna used a PowerPoint presentation when suddenly the computer screen turned black.Brenna could not figure out how to solve the problem. Ten minutes later, she sent astudent to the administration office to find the technology teacher and asked him for help. While waiting for the technology teacher to come and fix the problem, a student offeredBrenna help to figure out the problem. The student found that the computer turned off since Brenna forgot to plug in the power cord. After the 15-minute long chaos, Brennafixed the problem and then continued her lesson. Another concern that Brenna had was

that she needed more time creating technology-enhanced curriculum units. Brennathought that collaboration among her colleagues might help her to create technology-richlesson plans because it was time consuming otherwise.

Brenna implemented a few inquiry activities in her classroom. According to her, she took the ordinary labs that she implemented before and changed parts of them to be moreinquiry based. To modify the labs to more inquiry, Brenna “offered more choices of materials that the students could choose from.” The observed “density inquiry” lesson wasan example of this strategy.

Brenna believed that in an inquiry activity “students should come up with their ownquestions and procedure.” However, the classroom observations show that Brenna oftenprovided the research questions and she provided little opportunity for students to design

their own procedure. In addition, during the inquiry activities rather than facilitatingstudents Brenna was mostly directing them on what to do and what not to do.

Matt’s Profile

Matt was a third-year science teacher in a private middle school. He taught eighth-gradephysical science and life science. Prior to participating in the program, Matt had previousknowledge and experience with many technology tools. He frequently used simulationsand Google Earth and Celestia “to facilitate concept demonstration.” However, Matt didnot use any kind of probeware in his instruction. Matt believed that technology tools havea “very strong potential to greatly assist the students in their knowledge creation.”

At the end of the summer course, Matt expressed in an interview that he had “decided that

concept mapping fits very well with his beliefs about the way that ideas and concepts are best described.” Thus, Matt made “plans on using concept mapping in his class regularly toassess his students’ understanding as well as to help learn them the connections betweenterms and concepts as they move through instruction.” The classroom observationsdemonstrated that Matt incorporated concept mapping into his teaching. As Matt put it,

I taught in a method that used shared CMaps to elicit student understandingsabout concepts I was teaching about. After engaging students in activities thatchallenged their understandings we had a class discussion that built a classconsensus around the results of the activity. The activities included: examiningthe variables that affect elastic interaction, how a constant force affects a low friction car, and what affect added mass has to acceleration.

Matt uploaded many of these maps to his class Web site. In the spring semester, Matt’sstudents posted online discussion to the class Web site. In his action research study, Mattinvestigated how online discussions influence his students’ learning. Matt valued onlinediscussions since he believed that they encourage students to participate in and moredeeply analyze the course materials. Matt provided topics such as water quality or guiding




f 18 15/03/2009 10:47

questions, such as “What forms the boundary of a watershed?” and “How should we takeour knowledge (that we have already and will continue to acquire) to help our society andour environment?” and asked students to write individual postings and respond to at leasttwo of their classmates’ postings.

In addition to concept mapping and online student discussion boards, Matt alsoimplemented probeware several times in his teaching after he participated in the program.He used motion detector probes in his physical science classroom when he taught about

Newton’s laws, and pH and temperature probeware in his life science classroom. Students were involved in a multiday environmental study at a local creek, and they made quick measurements of temperature and pH using probeware. In their investigations studentsfocused on the research question, “What is the water quality of our creek?” Based on theirmeasurements and observations, students wrote research reports about the water quality in the creek.

Another tool that Matt gave priority to in his teaching was simulation. Matt expressed thathe used “technology to help [his] presentation of concepts to the students.” According tohim, “animations and simulations give the students a wide array of pathways towardsunderstanding.” Simulations that he used while he taught mitosis and meiosis and velocity and acceleration helped his students build a conceptual understanding of these abstractconcepts.

Even though Matt was “excited about the potential demonstrated by the VeeMaps and would like to move towards them as [his] means of assessment and presentation of labreports,” he did not use them during the school year. Matt felt “somewhat uncertain,” andhe thought he “needed to spend more time thinking about them before he is ready to turnto them as an organizing feature of [his] teaching.”

Matt was a proponent of inquiry-based teaching. He believed that students learn science best while they are doing it. Thus, he frequently used inquiry activities in his classroom. Although some of these activities were long term science projects such as testing waterquality in the creek, others were one-class-period-long inquiry activities. At the beginningof the spring semester, Matt taught students about organisms, and students conducted various directed inquiry activities about cabbage white butterflies, Wisconsin fast plants,

and wow bugs. Matt provided the research question on all these activities, and studentsmade observations to answer his questions. For example, students did a long-term projectto investigate how cabbage white butterflies hatch.

Cassie’s Profile

Cassie was a second-year teacher in an urban charter school that served only immigrantstudents. She taught 9th-, 10th-, 11th-, and 12th- grade Earth science, physical science, andlife science. Before she participated in the program she had basic computer skills (e.g.,using word processing, Excel, and PowerPoint applications). In her teaching, Cassie didnot use many of the tools such as probeware and simulations that she learned in theteacher education program, since she did not feel comfortable using them in herclassroom. For Cassie, “using technology has always been difficult. “She would rather do

things the old fashioned way.” However, she believed that she should integrate technology into her classroom instruction since “the world is becoming more technology savvy.”

Cassie was the only teacher who expressed that the summer course was less helpful for herthan she expected. Cassie stressed that she “learned a lot about technology and how tointegrate it into the classroom, but we did not really do it a lot [during] the summer.” She wanted more “structure and specific expectations.” Cassie struggled with learning how touse many of the technology tools since the university educators in TEC used aninquiry-based approach rather than giving teachers step-by-step procedures that Cassie wanted to follow to learn about the technology tools. During a classroom observation infall 2008, Cassie expressed that she had already forgotten how to use CMap tools that shelearned two months prior in the summer course.

After participating in the summer program, Cassie expressed that her commitment for thefollowing year was “to introduce VeeMaps as an alternative to traditional lab reports, andto incorporate one aspect of inquiry into each of [her] biology units.” She continued,“Introducing VeeMaps makes me a little nervous, and I am not sure how I will approach




f 18 15/03/2009 10:47

it.” During the school year, Cassie’s concerns prevented her from using VeeMaps in herinstruction. She did not feel comfortable using them with her minority students who hadlimited English skills.

Cassie did not incorporate any of the technology tools that she learned in the program intoher teaching. In an interview, she expressed that she had limited access to these tools, andshe taught in a school environment that did not give her many choices but lecturing. Mostof her students came to the U.S. just before the school started. In addition to limited

language skills, her students had a conception of science different than Western science.For example, in an observed class, Cassie taught students about cell organelles in ananimal cell. Since she did not even have an overhead projector in her classroom, Cassiegave her students photocopied papers that showed the organelles of an animal cell. Afterexplaining the role of each organelle Cassie asked her students to make cells using plasticplates, candies, and jelly. Cassie was surprised when her students did not show any interest in making cells. Students could not understand this cell analogy activity.

Cassie stated “Science is not fact and science is not just memorizing. Inquiry is the truescientific method and it is important to teach students how to think critically becauseinquiry can be applied anywhere in their lives.” For Cassie, inquiry is “a student-centeredactivity where students explore something first and then they maybe get an introduction toit and then they apply it.” In an inquiry activity, Cassie wanted her students to “drive the

most part of the work. The students are, hopefully, in theory investigating something thatthey are interested in first and then learn something and apply it. For me this is ideally andI never do it…open inquiry” [laughs]. According to Cassie it is difficult to implement theinquiry emphasized in the NSES and literature. Cassie said that to be able to do reform based teaching, a science teacher needs to have “enough science supplies and science space[own classroom].” In the following quote, Cassie talked about her constraints inimplementing inquiry-based teaching.

I try to create a student centered environment but it exhausted me. I have tofocus on how to teach people who do not speak English very well about science without any books. I do not have any books that really work and I do not havemy own classroom.

Cassie attempted “to increase the amount of inquiry within each biology unit.” At the beginning of the school year, Cassie had many concerns. She did not know “how inquiry will work within the school structure.” Also, she did not have many science supplies with which to work. Thus, she hoped to start small and train the students to think morein-depth about science, but more importantly about their world. However, having so many barriers prevented Cassie from implementing any inquiry lessons during the school year.

Discussion

The Influence of TEC on Science Teachers’ Development of TPACK

As emphasized earlier, in this study McCrory’s (2008) conceptualization of TPACK wasemployed as a theoretical framework. In the present study, the four components of

TPACK–knowledge of science, of students, of pedagogy, and of technology – wereinvestigated to find science teachers’ development of TPACK. TEC was found to have a varying impact on each participant teacher’s development of TPACK. In the followingsection, each component of TPACK and how TEC impacted these components arediscussed. In addition, the school context and teachers’ reasoning skills are discussed ascritical influences on teachers’ development of TPACK.

Knowledge of Science. To teach science effectively, science teachers need to have anadequate level of knowledge of science. Thus, science teachers should refresh theirknowledge of science to maximize their students’ learning. Teachers in TEC were provided with opportunities to review and update their knowledge about science. The summercourse readings helped teachers broaden their knowledge construction. For example, whenteachers practiced with pH and temperature probes in performing experiments on

greenhouse gases, they also improved their knowledge on this topic. The university educators assigned teachers to read articles about greenhouse gases before participating inthe activities. Prior to conducting experiments about greenhouse gases, the university educators and the teachers discussed the topic. Through these readings and classroom




f 18 15/03/2009 10:47

discussions teachers improved their understanding of greenhouse gases. According toBrenna, this strategy really helped her to increase her understanding of the topic and tofigure out various ways to design an inquiry lab activity on greenhouse gases for her Earthscience class.

TEC did not specifically target improving teachers' content knowledge. As participantstaught in different science subject areas, it was difficult to target growth in contentknowledge. Thus, TEC specifically focused on helping teachers to rethink science and their

representation of science in their teaching. In TEC, teachers frequently engaged inclassroom discussions on what science is and what inquiry is, and these discussions helpedteachers understand how scientific knowledge is generated and justified. All the teachersfound these discussions “intensive.”

Knowledge of Pedagogy. Most beginning science teachers struggle with developingeffective lesson plans. In order to create lesson plans that meet all students’ needs,teachers need to have a deep understanding about student learning and strategies thathelp students construct knowledge and improve skills and abilities. In TEC, teacherslearned how to create technology-supported, inquiry-based lesson plans. In the summercourse, teachers wrote lesson plans and shared them with other teachers in the community Web site. The university educators provided suggestions to improve lesson plans if needed.The community Web site now has several lesson plans that teachers can use in their

classrooms.

Creating classroom management and organization is one of the biggest challenges for beginning science teachers (Roehrig & Luft, 2004). These challenges become morecomplicated when integrating technology into teaching. Given the preponderance of beginning teachers in TEC, the university educators provided extensive guidance forteachers in helping them overcome the classroom management issues they faced duringtheir instruction. In classroom discussions, face-to-face meetings, and online discussion boards teachers shared their experiences and constraints, while university educators andcolleagues provided possible solutions. However, all the teachers were found to struggle with management issues during the school year. Brenna, for example, had a hard timemanaging her classroom when she faced problems with her computer. Since she was notable to troubleshoot the computer-related problem, she panicked and could not establish

classroom order.

Matt also struggled with introducing technology tools to his students. In his instruction,Matt used various tools and showed great enthusiasm for these technology tools. He wanted all his students engaged in technology tools. However, students did not show highinterest in the technology tools every time Matt used them in his instruction. Althoughstudents engaged in using CMap tools, they showed low engagement when they used thedigital microscope. Matt still needed to find effective strategies to keep each studentinvolved in technology-rich lessons.

Knowledge of Technology. The main goal of TEC was to help teachers integrate technology tools into their classrooms. As discussed previously, Jason, Matt, and Brenna integratedtechnology in their teaching in various degrees. On the other hand, Cassie could not

incorporate technology tools into her classroom. One possible explanation was thedifference in teachers’ previous experiences with technology tools. When Jason and Mattstarted the program, they were more comfortable using many of the technology tools intheir teaching than Cassie and Brenna were. In her first and second teaching year, Brennaattempted to use some of the tools that she learned during the teacher preparationprogram. However, in her first teaching year, Cassie did not use any of the tools that shelearned in the teacher preparation program. Thus, Cassie was the only teacher who hadlimited knowledge and skills required to teach science with technology.

Jason and Matt were “technology enthusiasts” and they focused on learning and alsointegrating as many technology tools as possible. They actively searched for opportunitiesto improve their technology knowledge. Both these teachers used other tools such asdigital microscopes and interactive white boards that were not presented in the summer

course. Moreover, these teachers took leadership roles in their schools. Jason taught hiscolleagues how to use CMaps. Matt attempted to help his colleagues to use online studentdiscussions as a new strategy to assess student learning.




f 18 15/03/2009 10:47

Knowledge of Students. Jason, Matt, Brenna, and Cassie all believed that students learnscience best when they are “engaged in science.” As such, all these teachers were advocatesof inquiry-based teaching. During the program, teachers learned how to turn cookbook labs into inquiry activities. In science classrooms, teachers commonly use cookbook labactivities in which students follow a given procedure. However, according to Brennastudents do not “retain too much” through cookbook lab activities. Allowing students to“write their own procedure” helps students learn better. Before participating in the

program, Brenna’s concern was how much help she should provide students in an inquiry activity. In the summer program, teachers performed the inquiry activities as students.Teachers were facilitated but not directed by the university educators. Participating inthese activities helped Brenna understand a teacher’s role in an inquiry activity.

The classroom discussions on effective science teaching also allowed teachers to have a better understanding of what good science teaching and learning look like. In addition,university educators shared their previous experiences with teachers in classroomdiscussions and online discussions. They shared their knowledge about common studentmisconceptions and difficulties in learning science.

The Critical Factors Influencing Teachers’ Development of TPACK

The school context and teachers’ pedagogical reasoning were found to have notable impacton teachers’ development of TPACK. We found that contextual constraints such asavailability of technology tools and characteristics of student population had large impactson the teachers’ development of TPACK, as previously suggested by Koehler and Mishra(2005, 2008) and McCrory (2008). Furthermore, detailed analysis revealed that teachers’development of TPACK was closely related to their pedagogical reasoning (Shulman,1987). It was found that teachers’ pedagogical reasoning skills influence teachers’ use of knowledge bases that are necessary to develop TPACK. Thus, it is possible that arelationship exists between teachers’ development of TPACK and their pedagogicalreasoning skills.

School Context. Jason, Matt, and Brenna all had access to technology tools in their schools,and their school community encouraged them to teach with technology. This continuous

support from the school community allowed these teachers to reform their practices. Asemphasized earlier, in TEC, university educators and participating teachers build alearning community to support teachers to integrate technology into their teaching.However, as previous research suggested, communities are not quickly formed (Grossmanet al., 2001). Not all teachers are equally interested in entering the community, as in thecase of Cassie.

At the end of the program, Cassie was not comfortable with using many of the technology tools in her science classroom. Even though she learned about these tools in her teachereducation program and TEC, Cassie still wanted to have more time and training to learn touse technology tools. Perhaps issues related with Cassie’s school environment alsoimpacted her decision to keep teaching without using any technology tools. Her ESLstudents had almost no background with science or technology. Cassie mostly focused on

finding ways to help these students learn about science, but she did not put effort intoimplementing inquiry activities and finding technology tools to incorporate that may havefostered her students’ learning of science. However, many research studies have shown theeffectiveness of using inquiry as well as technology tools with ESL students(Mistler-Jackson & Songer, 2000).

Teachers’ Pedagogical Reasoning. Similar to previous studies (Shulman, 1987), it wasfound that teachers’ pedagogical reasoning mirrored their pedagogical actions. Teachers’reasons for their decisions about classroom instruction closely related to their conceptionsof science, effective science teaching and instructional strategies, purposes of scienceteaching, and student understanding. For example, Matt said that technology scaffoldsstudents’ learning of science, and students can learn science best when they are actively engaged in science. Matt was found to transform his ideas into his teaching. He decided to

use instructional strategies such as inquiry-based teaching, representations such asconcept mapping tools, and simulations after participating TEC. Based on his students’characteristics, he adapted many of the strategies he learned in the program. During hisinstruction, he clearly expressed his expectations to his students. He wanted all his




f 18 15/03/2009 10:47

students to be active learners. In some of the lessons, however, students did not show theinterest Matt expected. Thus, he decided to use different classroom management strategiesin the next teaching year. This process of reflection was a part of his pedagogical reasoningand guided his classroom practices.

In TEC, teachers were encouraged to be reflective about their teaching. The classroom andonline discussions helped teachers restructure their ideas about effective science teaching.Teachers found opportunities to analyze their pedagogical reasons behind their actions.

Jason, Matt, and Brenna thought about how they teach and how they wanted to teach inthe future. They reflected on their practices and then reformed their practices. Thus, itseems that the development of TPACK closely related to teachers’ pedagogical reasoningand TEC encouraged teachers critically to analyze their pedagogical reasoning andpedagogical actions.

Implications

The findings of this study provide suggestions for designers of professional developmentprograms that aim to improve science teachers’ development of TPACK. Well-developedprograms that provide opportunities for participating teachers to build and sustain“learning communities” seem to have positive impacts on science teachers’ technology integration. Continuous support is necessary to help teachers overcome the constraints in

incorporating technology. With models such as Loucks-Horsley et al., (2003) and Bell andGilbert’s (2004), which focus on collaboration among teachers, effective professionaldevelopment programs can be designed for science teachers to reform their practices. It isimportant to note that in the summer course we were limited in our ability to addresscertain aspects of TPACK (content knowledge) and broader, related issues such as schoolcontext. The follow-up activities and action research were critical in addressing anddeveloping individual teachers’ classroom practices. In particular, it was found to benecessary to provide teachers follow-up assistance during the time when they weredesigning and implementing their technology-enriched lessons and action researchprojects.

The findings of this study also suggest that teachers should reflect on their classroompractices in order to incorporate technology and inquiry into their teaching more

effectively. Conducting action research projects and keeping reflective blogs (or journals)in which teachers analyze their experiences and reflect on their practices allowed them tosee the effectiveness of technology on students’ learning and to reflect on and modify theirpractices. As emphasized by other researchers, reflective practice can help teachersimprove their knowledge of pedagogy and knowledge of students (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,1993). Thus, professional development programs focusing on technology integrationshould provide teachers opportunities to reflect on their teaching and share theirexperiences both with professional development leaders and their peers.

Further Research

Based on the results of this study it is evident that further research needs to be conductedin some areas. Regarding science teachers’ development of TPACK, it is clear that more

data needs to be collected from experienced science teachers who have already incorporated technology into their teaching. Experienced science teachers with well-developed TPACK may help us to gain a better understanding of the nature anddevelopment of TPACK. In addition, the comparison studies between beginning andexperienced science teachers’ TPACK may allow us to create better teacher education andprofessional development programs that focus on improving teachers’ TPACK.

In this study, participating teachers were followed for one year. Technology integrationtakes time and requires commitment. Thus, there is a need to conduct long-term researchstudies to track teachers’ development for a long period of time. In addition, at the end of the program, the university researchers and the participating teachers decided to sustainthe learning community that they built during the program. Further research is needed tofind the effects of participating in a learning community during and after the professional

development program in teachers’ development of TPACK.

Acknowledgements




f 18 15/03/2009 10:47

Funds for this project were provided by a grant from the federal Teacher Quality Programof the No Child Left Behind Act administered by the Minnesota Office of HigherEducation. This project was financed by $49,753.00 in federal funds. The positionexpressed herein represents the point of view of the authors and not necessarily the view of personnel affiliated with the Minnesota of Higher Education. The authors thank DavidGross and Joel Donna for their contributions for the design and implementation of theprogram.

References

AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York:Routledge

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientificliteracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (2004). A model for achieving teacher development. In J. Gilbert(Ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in science education, (pp. 258-278). New York:RoutledgeFalmer.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: Anintegrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-272.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993).Inside outside: Teacher research andknowledge. New York: Teacher College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.

Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 175-194.

Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.

Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking abouttechnology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 342-361.

Fernandez-Balvoa, J. & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature of pedagogical contentknowledge among college professors. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(3), 293-306.

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.SocialProblems, 12(4), 436-445.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies forqualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publication.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teachereducation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teachercommunity. The Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942-1012.

Huffman, D. (2006). Reforming pedagogy: In-service teacher education and instruction

reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 121-136.

Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in formingtechnology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2),277-302.




f 18 15/03/2009 10:47

Hughes, J., Kerr, S., & Ooms, A. (2005). Content-focused technology inquiry groups: Casesof teacher learning and technology integration. Journal of Educational ComputingResearch, 32, 367-379.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educationaltechnology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovationand Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK)for educators, (pp. 3-31). New York: Routledge.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfield, P., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model forhelping middle grade teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary ScienceJournal, 94(5), 483-498.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral. New York:Cambridge

Lee, E., Brown, M., Luft, J., & Roehrig, G. (2007). Assessing beginning secondary scienceteachers’ PCK: Pilot year results. School Science and Mathematics, 107(2), 52-60.

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003).Designingprofessional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Magnusson, S., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J. (1994). Teaching complex subject matter inscience: Insights from an analysis of pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.

Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modifiedconception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11.

McCrory, R. (2008). Science, technology, and teaching: The topic-specific challenges of TPCK in science. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content nowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 193-206). New York: Routledge.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nded.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,

108(6), 1017-1054.

Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5),459-479.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science educationstandards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology:

Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 21, 509-523.

Niess, M. L. (2008). Guiding preservice teachers in developing TPCK. In AACTECommittee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical




f 18 15/03/2009 10:47

content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, (pp. 223-251). New York: Routledge

Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact:Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 15-27.

Novak, A. M., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Using technology to support inquiry in middle schoolscience. In L.B. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science:Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education, (pp. 75-101). Netherlands:Springer.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Office of Technology Assessment.(1995). Teachers and technology: Making theconnection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publication

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have tosay about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4-15.

Roehrig, G., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary scienceteachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 23, 3-24.

Roehrig, G., & Luft, J. A. (2006). Does one size fit all?: The induction experience of beginning science teachers from different teacher preparation programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 963-985.

Roehrig, G., Luft, J., & Edwards, M. (2001). Versatile VeeMaps.The Science Teacher,68(1), 28-31.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching w ith technology: Creating

student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Showalter, V. M. (Eds.). (1984). Conditions for good science teaching. Washington, DC:National Science Teachers Association.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(5), 4-14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. HarvardEducational Reviews, 57, 1-22.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical content knowledge in teachereducation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99-110.

Trowbridge, L. W., Bybee, R. W., & Powell, J. C. (2008).Teaching secondary schoolscience: Strategies for developing scientific literacy (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks:Sage.

Zeichner, K. (2003). Teacher research as professional development for P-12 educators inthe USA. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301-325.

Author Note:

Teaching Science With Technology

Documents

Transcript of Teaching Science With Technology